Originally posted by milanja
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Dolphins
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Steakface View Post
On the contrary, it will dilute the talent across the board, not weaken specific clubs as such. More correct to say, it'll be a 'weaker' comp. It'll be incrementally closer to the Super League in overall quality.
I think thats one of the key reasons the NRL want expansion - the last decade of dominance of the Storm, Roosters, Manly is bad for business.
They want a much more even comp.
The reality is, the comp will become more even. You'll see a much stronger overall top 8, rather than the last few years where there is a clearly dominate top 3 or 4 clubs.
I just think when you look at the bottom 6 sides this year theres a host of players who arent of first grade standard. I cant see by adding another 30 players in the mix how it will give you a more even competition- it certainly won't give you an overall stronger product. For those of us old enough to remember the 20 team comp of 1995 and 1996 seasons, it was littered with dozens of games that were not much higher in quality than park footy.
If i was the NRL i would have been plowing tens of millions into junior comps, country league & even league pathways in Samoa, Fiji, PNG and Tonga
Comment
-
Originally posted by Random Rooster View Post
If they want a much more even competition then bring in a player draft. The reason you see the Roosters & Storm dominate the last decade is they have strong progressive management. We are constantly reminded how we have no juniors....and is there such a thing as a Storm junior? Yet these 2 clubs excel.
I just think when you look at the bottom 6 sides this year theres a host of players who arent of first grade standard. I cant see by adding another 30 players in the mix how it will give you a more even competition- it certainly won't give you an overall stronger product. For those of us old enough to remember the 20 team comp of 1995 and 1996 seasons, it was littered with dozens of games that were not much higher in quality than park footy.
If i was the NRL i would have been plowing tens of millions into junior comps, country league & even league pathways in Samoa, Fiji, PNG and Tonga
A salary cap which is easy to cheat and the average punter in the street always questions why can teams like Easts fit the team under the cap, they must be cheating.
Players are worth points with the value depending on a never player NRL before, average NRL player, SOO player or test player.
Clubs can't have player declining to play rep footy to reduce there value, you get picked and decline to play you are still valued as a rep player.
Develop a player then you get a discount for the contract.
Teddy being a rep player and we want to offer $500,000 or $2,000,000 a season that's our business but his points value stays the same.
We still would have to manage and stay under the points cap but its more transparent.
Dollar value is easy to cheat as we all know, pretty sure all clubs fudge the figures including ours. Sign a player on $500,000 but employee his mum on $200,000 to serve beers at the club.
Clubs like Easts, Manly, Eels and the Storm would probably be disadvantaged as we develop and don't pay overs like the Tigers or Dogs but it would share the talent around.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Random Rooster View Post
If they want a much more even competition then bring in a player draft. The reason you see the Roosters & Storm dominate the last decade is they have strong progressive management. We are constantly reminded how we have no juniors....and is there such a thing as a Storm junior? Yet these 2 clubs excel.
I just think when you look at the bottom 6 sides this year theres a host of players who arent of first grade standard. I cant see by adding another 30 players in the mix how it will give you a more even competition- it certainly won't give you an overall stronger product. For those of us old enough to remember the 20 team comp of 1995 and 1996 seasons, it was littered with dozens of games that were not much higher in quality than park footy.
If i was the NRL i would have been plowing tens of millions into junior comps, country league & even league pathways in Samoa, Fiji, PNG and Tonga
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kentucky_Fried_Rooster View Post
There should be a points cap instead of a salary cap.
A salary cap which is easy to cheat and the average punter in the street always questions why can teams like Easts fit the team under the cap, they must be cheating.
Players are worth points with the value depending on a never player NRL before, average NRL player, SOO player or test player.
Clubs can't have player declining to play rep footy to reduce there value, you get picked and decline to play you are still valued as a rep player.
Develop a player then you get a discount for the contract.
Teddy being a rep player and we want to offer $500,000 or $2,000,000 a season that's our business but his points value stays the same.
We still would have to manage and stay under the points cap but its more transparent.
Dollar value is easy to cheat as we all know, pretty sure all clubs fudge the figures including ours. Sign a player on $500,000 but employee his mum on $200,000 to serve beers at the club.
Clubs like Easts, Manly, Eels and the Storm would probably be disadvantaged as we develop and don't pay overs like the Tigers or Dogs but it would share the talent around.
I love Uncle Nick but I can't agree with him on this one about expanding to 20 teams, I just think even now that the quality isn't there for even 16 as we saw with the lopsided contests this year.
Comment
-
I'm all for growing the game but I'm questioning whether adding more teams is necessarily the best thing for the NRL as it stands today.
Mainly due to two factors. 1. The lack of quality players. You need multiple marquee players in each squad for a team to be competitive, and produce a good product that people want to watch. 2. The lack of funds. The majority of teams barely make a profit. Adding teams means that there are more mouths to feed.
I'd rather see a couple of teams relocate. In a national sport, Sydney no longer needs 9 teams. Geographical speaking, Dogs and Souffs make the most sense to me.
While we are at it permanently make the Tigpies and St. Merge play out of Campbelltown and the Gong respectively. This will allow both merged clubs to finally (after 22 years) build an identity, in fan heartlands. Both clubs have struggled to keep both their sets of fans happy. Time to go to where they will have the most success, instead of being multiple things and pleasing no one.
You are then left with 6 teams in Sydney fighting for the same corporate $ instead of 9.
Dogs and Souffs can be rebranded based on their new locations. Either Perth or a 2nd NZ team is a must due to their time zones. It adds an extra live game for super Saturday/Sunday. Let's face it. Whether we like it or not keeping fans happy isn't as important as bringing in a larger TV deal, because that's where the money comes from.
p.s if Souffs don't like it piss them off. They are nothing without the Phone Chucker pouring in his millions a year. And for what? 1 welfare comp in 50 years. They won't be missedLast edited by SupermanSupportsEasts4Eva; 10-14-2021, 01:02 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SupermanSupportsEasts4Eva View PostI'm all for growing the game but I'm questioning whether adding more teams is necessarily the best thing for the NRL as it stands today.
Mainly due to two factors. 1. The lack of quality players. You need multiple marquee players in each squad for a team to be competitive, and produce a good product that people want to watch. 2. The lack of funds. The majority of teams barely make a profit. Adding teams means that there are more mouths to feed.
I'd rather see a couple of teams relocate. In a national sport, Sydney no longer needs 9 teams. Geographical speaking, Dogs and Souffs make the most sense to me.
While we are at it permanently make the Tigpies and St. Merge play out of Campbelltown and the Gong respectively. This will allow both merged clubs to finally (after 22 years) build an identity, in fan heartlands. Both clubs have struggled to keep both their sets of fans happy. Time to go to where they will have the most success, instead of being multiple things and pleasing no one.
You are then left with 6 teams in Sydney fighting for the same corporate $ instead of 9.
Dogs and Souffs can be rebranded based on their new locations. Either Perth or a 2nd NZ team is a must due to their time zones. It adds an extra live game for super Saturday/Sunday. Let's face it. Whether we like it or not keeping fans happy isn't as important as bringing in a larger TV deal, because that's where the money comes from.
p.s if Souffs don't like it piss them off. They are nothing without the Phone Chucker pouring in his millions a year. And for what? 1 welfare comp in 50 years. They won't be missed
- 2 likes
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mickie Lane View Post
Yeah that’s your take because you go for the Roosters but imagine if it was the Roosters that were being told to relocate. No one on here can say get rid of Souths or Canterbury because just as many people on other forums would want the Roosters to relocate because the Roosters have no juniors & all that. My main point is if you’re not prepared for your own team to relocate then don’t throw other teams under the bus.
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kentucky_Fried_Rooster View Post
There should be a points cap instead of a salary cap.
A salary cap which is easy to cheat and the average punter in the street always questions why can teams like Easts fit the team under the cap, they must be cheating.
Players are worth points with the value depending on a never player NRL before, average NRL player, SOO player or test player.
Clubs can't have player declining to play rep footy to reduce there value, you get picked and decline to play you are still valued as a rep player.
Develop a player then you get a discount for the contract.
Teddy being a rep player and we want to offer $500,000 or $2,000,000 a season that's our business but his points value stays the same.
We still would have to manage and stay under the points cap but its more transparent.
Dollar value is easy to cheat as we all know, pretty sure all clubs fudge the figures including ours. Sign a player on $500,000 but employee his mum on $200,000 to serve beers at the club.
Clubs like Easts, Manly, Eels and the Storm would probably be disadvantaged as we develop and don't pay overs like the Tigers or Dogs but it would share the talent around.
Points systems are too complicated to administer - my old Junior Club East Campbelltown Eagles won the Group 6 premiership and the prestigious Claytons cup being the only undefeated team in the NSW CRL that season - Group 6 then decides to bring in a points system saying they were too strong and to "even up the comp - most of the players came through the Eagles Juniors though - They withdraw from Group 6 and joined the Sydney Shield comp winning 3 comps with basically the same players.
The current salary cap has it's issues but is a more fairer system and easier to administer -
Comment
-
Originally posted by SupermanSupportsEasts4Eva View PostI'm all for growing the game but I'm questioning whether adding more teams is necessarily the best thing for the NRL as it stands today.
Mainly due to two factors. 1. The lack of quality players. You need multiple marquee players in each squad for a team to be competitive, and produce a good product that people want to watch. 2. The lack of funds. The majority of teams barely make a profit. Adding teams means that there are more mouths to feed.
I'd rather see a couple of teams relocate. In a national sport, Sydney no longer needs 9 teams. Geographical speaking, Dogs and Souffs make the most sense to me.
While we are at it permanently make the Tigpies and St. Merge play out of Campbelltown and the Gong respectively. This will allow both merged clubs to finally (after 22 years) build an identity, in fan heartlands. Both clubs have struggled to keep both their sets of fans happy. Time to go to where they will have the most success, instead of being multiple things and pleasing no one.
You are then left with 6 teams in Sydney fighting for the same corporate $ instead of 9.
Dogs and Souffs can be rebranded based on their new locations. Either Perth or a 2nd NZ team is a must due to their time zones. It adds an extra live game for super Saturday/Sunday. Let's face it. Whether we like it or not keeping fans happy isn't as important as bringing in a larger TV deal, because that's where the money comes from.
p.s if Souffs don't like it piss them off. They are nothing without the Phone Chucker pouring in his millions a year. And for what? 1 welfare comp in 50 years. They won't be missed
I actually think the idea of merging Souths- St George-Ilawarra and Sharks is a viable one and play out of a refurbished Kogarah Oval (Bank West type ground)- South Sydney and Southern Sydney are in close proximity plus they could Merge Wests Tigers and Bulldogs (play out of either a refurbished Campbelltown or Liverpool) and Parramatta and Penrith play out of Bankwest and or a refurbished Panther ground.
Be 5 Sydney clubs including standalone Chooks and Manly- plus redraw the Junior boundaries
Be plenty of left over players to fill the new 3 teams - i.e Souths/Dragons and Sharks select 10 players from their squads for the new club - 60 players then available for the 3 new teams and other teams - Tigers and Dogs . Parra and Penrith pick 15 each from their squads - another 30 players available for the 3 new teams and other teams
13 teams then can add another 3 - QLD team/WA and 2nd NZ team for a 16 team comp - able to expand to 17 and 18 as well later on- SA./ NT and Tassie / Pacific Islands/PNGLast edited by King Salvo; 10-14-2021, 07:14 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mickie Lane View PostThis will go down well, if there were any 2 clubs that should merge its Easts & Souths they’re over the road from each other & if they did merged they would be unstoppable.
Okay I will now go & take my medication.
Comment
Comment